PURPOSE: To quantify artifacts from different root filling materials in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images acquired using different exposure parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen single-rooted teeth were scanned using 8 different exposure protocols with 3 different filling materials and once without filling material as a control group. Artifact quantification was performed by a trained observer who made measurements in the central axial slice of all acquired images in a fixed region of interest using ImageJ. Hyperdense artifacts, hypodense artifacts, and the remaining tooth area were identified, and the percentages of hyperdense and hypodense artifacts, remaining tooth area, and tooth area affected by the artifacts were calculated. Artifacts were analyzed qualitatively by 2 observers using the following scores: absence (0), moderate presence (1), and high presence (2) for hypodense halos, hypodense lines, and hyperdense lines. Two-way ANOVA and the post-hoc Tukey test were used for quantitative and qualitative artifact analysis. The Dunnet test was also used for qualitative analysis. The significance level was set at P<.05. RESULTS: There were no significant interactions among the exposure parameters in the quantitative or qualitative analysis. Significant differences were observed among the studied filling materials in all quantitative analyses. In the qualitative analyses, all materials differed from the control group in terms of hypodense and hyperdense lines (P<.05). Fiberglass posts did not differ statistically from the control group in terms of hypodense halos (P>.05). CONCLUSION: Different exposure parameters did not affect the objective or subjective observations of artifacts in CBCT images; however, the filling materials used in endodontic restorations did affect both types of assessments.
Artifacts* ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional ; Tooth

Maxillofacial images must be examined to find pathologies not identified during clinical examination. Unicystic ameloblastoma (UA) extending to the mandibular body and ramus was neglected on initial panoramic radiographic examination. After orthodontic therapy, a huge lesion was observed clinically and through imaging exams. After the conservative surgery, no recurrence was observed during five years of follow-up. This case emphasized the need for careful evaluation of patient images focusing on the oral diagnosis before any dental treatment planning, including orthodontic therapy.
Ameloblastoma* ; Delayed Diagnosis* ; Dentistry ; Diagnosis, Oral ; Diagnostic Imaging ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Mandible* ; Pathology ; Recurrence